guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Felix Omni/archive7
sockpuppets (selected portions only) Never accuse another user of being a sockpuppet merely based on their knowledge of the Wiki and its past history. Assume Good Faith until proven otherwise. Not only is it rude, but it creates unnecessary tension and can lead to drama. Moreover it is a quick way to make enemies. (T/ ) 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) :Uh huh. 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :I suppose I shouldn't point out the following things: #By accusing me of accusing him (them) without good reason, you have also not assumed good faith. How would you presume to know what drives my actions? #I almost immediately amended my statement on Banjthulu's talk page, as I realized it was rather blunt. I do not pretend to comprehend your rationale for disregarding that. #When people (including me) accused User:Light Kitty of being Warwick's sock puppet, you did not give a tinker's cuss, so to speak. #I don't care about making enemies any more than I do about making friends. 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::I should also point out that I was involved with the "accusations" of sockpuppetry. Though, I was more or less joking... accept for Light Kitty. -- [[User:Isk8|''I~sk8]] (T/ 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC) #You did accuse them without good reason. To paraphrase, "no user that new could possibly know of such old Wiki affairs". Therefore, the conclusion is automatically that the user is a sockpuppet. That is a breach of AGF. You made accusations, and me stating that as a matter of fact is not "accusing" you. I don't have to accuse you of something you did. Moreover, your motives are irrelevant: accusations of sockpuppetry are always bad. No good can come of such witch-hunts. Who gives a fuck, anyways, if an old user comes back as a new account? The only time sockpuppets cause trouble is when it is a User:Stabber-like situation...the sockpuppet throws votes, creates drama with themselves, etc. Neither Banthjulu nor Dr.R.Phalange is doing any such thing, and thus you have no right to even bring up such a subject. #Apologizing is always nice and I am glad that you did so. But that does not mean I can tell you that your actions were wrong anyways. If I ban a fellow admin that I disagree with, and then later apologize and reverse the ban because I was personally involved and it was abuse of powers, I still ought to be told off and get punished for the deed. #Who the heck is User:Light Kitty? I am not omniscient, Felix, and if there have been other such cases of this behavior that I do not notice then that is not my fault. I only happen to have Banthjulu on my Watchlist, hence why I noticed this incident and brought it up. I will go and look into that incident, though from your wording it seems that it is already done with so anything I say may be irrelevant now. #Good for you; that means you have no qualms about me saying I have no reason to explain my past actions to you any more. I hope your Rohan socializing is faring much better, since you have no friends left here. Not that you care - "the Wiki is not a place for private discussions". We are all business here. (T/ ) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I apologize. I crossed the line there. It is evident that I am too personally involved with you. I ought to let someone else handle this and other situations from here on out. (T/ ) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :No, that's okay. It's about time you showed some honesty. 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::That's an uncalled for response. Entropy is obviously somewhat distraught and you respond by calling her honesty into question? Just let it die. Banjthulu is better than you 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::Oh, hi. What are you doing here? 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Felix is my friend on this wiki, Entropy :) — Warw/Wick 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Actually, I suppose it was uncalled for. Oh well. 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Just as you reserve the right to delete my comments, I "reserve the right... to express my opinion to the best of my ability." Banjthulu is better than you 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Okay then. 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Why do you bother restoring the section If it's just a biased bastardization of the actual discussion? -Auron 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :"Selected portions only" part actually points out the fact you are censoring people, while had you not it wouldn't be apparent a discussion you didn't like took place at all.-- 05:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Prepare for censorship, censorship imminent. 05:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Shut up. 05:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Technically, you're breaking the policy only letting certain comments through, because thats technically editing comments (Giving people answers, but not the thing that the answers were to, for instance). 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Felix knows he's censoring, he's admitting it, but he's trying to explain his actions while also trying to let the situation cool down. Granted, it's by making the arguement absent, but absence helps people cool down. And which policy addresses how talk pages are to be used/editted? JonTheMon 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Censorship is hardly the best way to cool down a situation. If one wants a situation to be "cooled down" then they should stop being involved with it at all. Removing parts that are unfavorable just makes the censor look biased and unwilling to be wrong. Had that person let the situation alone then it would appear that person was mature enough to let the situation drop.-- 16:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Yes, but how often do things "get dropped" then something on your talkpage stares up in your face and pisses you off? Or someone else off? Now, I'll say that the better course of action would have been to just archive and let it fade away ('course, the discussion could still be active, not allowing this...) instead of making the conversation just show his "better side". JonTheMon 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Alright. I archived only to prevent a discussion of religion, which would have turned into a flame war, as well as making me extraordinarily angry. You could say I archived for my own health- high blood pressure, etc. I then restored the part of the discussion pertaining to sock puppets, because it was valid, and what's more, it was not concluded. I will not host a religious debate on my talk page. Ever. 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) You You're making the same mistakes as May :] 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :And you are May. 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Or James, or perhaps the other brother. Who knows :P --- -- (s)talkpage 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Bran doesn't play GW ;). — Warw/Wick 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Or exist. 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Cynicism is expected, but not needed. — Warw/Wick 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::: *like this, Felix? ;) Yeah, Wikicode is a bitch sometimes. Blah --- -- (s)talkpage 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::That's the curse of prefixing with an asterisk. 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Rohan Z0mg, I liek, playeed it. RT sez it looks like a korean hack and slash. :p — Warw/Wick 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :It is Korean, but it's fairly sophisticated. 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Oh, gimme your IGN so I can powerlevel you and stuff. 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Maywick. — Warw/Wick 18:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::K, mine's Nephenee- cuz she's a tank, of course. 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Mm, Maywick got deleted. I'm Warwick. — Warw/Wick 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Find Player and Add Friend aren't showing any results for Warwick. Are you on the correct server (Silva)? They don't carry over. It's kind of stupid imo. 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Orite. Silva was Full. :( I'm maywick again then. — Warw/Wick 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Even when a server says Full, you can still use it. 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Kay. — Warw/Wick 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Nephenee is most definitely a tank. Especially when you give her things like adept and gamble :P 70+ percent critical chance ftw ^_^ '¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Precisely correct! :D 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Block? As per the template, i disagree with this users privaleges being removed, why exactly are we banning Felix now?-- - (Talk/ ) 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :I believe the issue mainly lies with this page, the most recent archive, and Banjthulu's talkpage. 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::But that's all over now, and as far as i can see, has nothing to with with R.Phalange :S-- - (Talk/ ) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :Tacit NPA against myself (see latest archive) and against Entropy. Ignoring AGF toward Phalange and myself. General asshattery (as noted on the ban template). To be honest, I think Felix needs a little while to calm down; I'm a (at least for all intents and purposes) relatively new user, and I don't know Felix very well, but it seems to me that his contributions have been tainted by his recent spat with Entropy, and I think he needs a chance to take stock of his priorities. Banjthulu is better than you 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :: Looking through the history here is so confusing with all the removings and re-addings. I am beggining to see the need for that archival thing jedi was working on *sigh* - eitherway, i think Felix should be allowed his chance to "cool down" and only be blocked if he abuses that and instigates further 'drama'-- - (Talk/ ) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::: It has nothing to do with you, either, so why are you even commenting? Yeah, that logic is pretty bad. :::So hang on, you want to force a cool-down without blocking, but block him if he doesn't cool down? Yeah, that logic is pretty bad. --[[User:R.Phalange|'''Dr R. Phalange]] 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::: It's been what, a full week since Felix was demoted (and if what I've been told is true, he was having issues well before he was demoted)? From what I can tell, the experience has taught him nothing; in fact, it's poisoned his relations with several users (and in some ways toward the wiki in general I think). That's why I think he needs a bit of time away from the Wiki. Entropy, herself, apparently realized that she was becoming too personally involved, etc., and banned herself because of it. Felix needs that same opportunity to gain a little perspective. Banjthulu is better than you 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::: No, i don't want to "force" a cool down, i want to ALLOW a period in which felix is given a chance to cool down, as this whole thing appears to be over. However, if it isn't, then clearly a block is necessary-- - (Talk/ ) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::... ::::::^ that's all I have to say on that matter. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Seems to me that Banjthulu and R.Phalange are the ones who are keeping this issue alive. I see no reason to ban Felix again. —Dr Ishmael 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::His demotion was supposed to cool him down. Clearly, it did not. 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Whatever, let's just all stop talking about this now, i think that would be best-- - (Talk/ ) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::I'd love to, I really would, and if I thought the issue would go away on its own I would in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I don't, and not talking about the issue isn't gonna solve anything. As long as people have things to say (i.e. until we've reached a polemical impasse), the discussion should and will go on. Getting everything into the open is much better than nursing our resentment. Banjthulu is better than you 19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::If you have something personal against Felix, then take it to email or IM or something off the wiki. We don't need the drama here. —Dr Ishmael 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::I have nothing personal against him; besides, I'm leaving to go on vacation in a few hours, so I really don't care how this turns out. This isn't about anything personal, this is about discussing a ban tag. I gave my honest unbiased (as much as is humanly possible at least) opinion. When someone questioned my opinion, I defended it (it is a discussion after all). If I thought this was personal/I could not give an unbiased opinion, I wouldn't have posted here. Banjthulu is better than you 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::Unfortunately, your opinion seems greatly biased against Felix. If you were truly unbiased, then why didn't you say anything at all about this comment on your talk page? That is a much clearer violation of NPA than anything Felix has said since then. —Dr Ishmael 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Simply put? It wasn't directed toward me. As such, I felt it was Felix's prerogative to notify an Admin if he so chose. Banjthulu is better than you 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::"No, that's okay. It's about time you showed some honesty." Yeah, obviously I'm the one holding the grudge. Banjthulu is better than you 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC) One last (hopefully) comment from me: it should be noted that when I pointed out to Felix that his comments toward Entropy had gone too far, he acknowledged that such was probably the case, but showed no remorse about it nor any inclination to amend his statement. Banjthulu is better than you 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC) : Ok everyone this has gotten a bit out of hand, the situation is no longer an issue since it does seem that twp particular users are prolonging it. If you will stop adding on to it, it will resolve its self and there will be no need for admin intervention. Something like this does not really need the admins attention as the situation is dying out and by requesting a ban you have only prolonged it. I suggest that you all try to calm down a bit and just ignore the situation; it will blow over --''Shadowphoenix'' 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::if somone has called for somone elses blocking it does need admin attention, they need to assess the situation. It hasn't really gotten out of hand, since Felix hasnt even said anything yet.. — Warw/Wick 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::Incidentally, Ishmael, are you authorized to remove that ban tag? 20:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::I can't answer for Ishmael, but given the (semi)autonomy of Admins on this site, I'd say he is. That said, another Admin could still come along and challenge Ishmael's "ruling" presumably. Banjthulu is better than you 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::As an admin, yes, I am authorized to make decisions regarding user banning. My primary role may be GWiki Janitor, but Entropy never said that would be my only role. I would welcome other admins' input on this matter, though, and I realize now that the best way to get that is probably to put the ban tag back up for now. —Dr Ishmael 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::I'm sorry, what's going on? 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Try reading. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::That was most unhelpful, thank you. I feel Banjthulu is just upset because of the copyright business and because I've publically stated my disapproval of atheism, which obviously is not a bannable offense or indeed an offense at all. I know very little about Phalange, except that his name is evidently not a reference to the Lebanese. 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::The user(s) in question is not Banjthulu, nor is it me; it's about you. Not only is your response incorrectly assuming that any argument against you is emotionally motivated or that your knowledge of me and/or Banjthulu is pertinent to your requested blocking, but it also proves your arsehattery and hostility. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 21:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::I do not feel, I think. I just regret that you don't. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I don't think you've said a single thing to me that didn't contain an insult. It's really quite off-putting. 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::Any admin is free to tell me off or block me if they think my actions are inappropriate. --[[User:R.Phalange|'Dr' R. Phalange]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC) That's unnecessary. My point is that I have no reason to take you or your concerns seriously, since you seem incapable of making a statement without resorting to childish name-calling. If you were truly concerned that my actions are out of line and are harming the community, you would attempt to resolve this more amicably. Yet all of your statements have been inflammatory; you clearly intend to goad me and to escalate this conflict. I do not know what you're trying to accomplish, but I will not walk into this one. 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Okay, everyone take a deep breath. No one is going to ban anyone at the moment. Now, anyone who has anything against Felix to say, should provide me links to read myself. Because I don't see anything on this page. "General asshattery" is not a valid block reason (no matter what precedents set by other admins in the past) so you need to give links. Additionally, if this has to do with accusations of sockpuppetry, i thought Entropy already scolded Felix about that. If we are talking about copyright issues, lets talk about that discussion. If we are going to talk about NPA, AGF violations and/or accusations of asshattery, links need to be provided (I'm not hunting them down). Also, remember that the best people to comment are the people who are not personally involved because they are totally non-biased. —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :Oh well, finally I'll create an account to poke my nose in... I think they're talking about User talk:Banjthulu, where Felix is, to be honest, just being a bit of a pain. He's deliberately making an issue of the (ever unclear) fair use matters because, IMO, he doesn't like Banjthulu getting on well with a certain female user. (He's also unnecessarily antagonistic over religion - but then Banjthulu is imlicitly mocking believers so honors even). It's definitely not ban-worthy, but I thought I'd make this comment just so Felix can see how he comes across to a random lurker (pathetic). I feel a bit sorry for him really, but he needs to get a grip and he's only got himself to blame for how he's coming to be regarded.Lurkerabove 00:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) As far as I can tell (and I've been involved in the Banjthulu talk and read some sockpuppet threads), Felix's behaviour has improved from the one he got banned and demoted for. He has held back on personal attacks (I assume his behaviour towards May is "friendly ribbing" now, as they seem to be at war one minute and best friends the next - May, please correct me if I'm wrong). He still doesn't reflect much on what he writes and manages to offend people ("atheism generally means disrespect and discrimination"), but instead of escalating the conflict he discusses, apologizes and backs off. Archiving the atheism discussion on this page (and posting that he did) was one of his better decisions, a definite improvement on his page deletion that he got banned for. I also support his insistence on Banjthulu getting his/her copyrights straight. I don't see what banning him now would accomplish. There was no damage done, and I see no danger of damage being done in the near future. "Being juvenile on people's talk pages" is hardly a good reason for a ban. Get consensus for GW:WIKIDRAMA and you might have a case. --mendel 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I don't see NPA mentioned in the ban request (and see no case being made), and I see no support for the alledged GW:YAV violation. --mendel 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Bah You EC'd me on the Smite Crawlers. :P I was going to be sarcastic and say something about how deadly monks can be while auto attacking. --Macros 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :That would be entertaining. I will go revert my edit and you can do yours. 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::Gogogo. 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::lol >.< I was just going to put it in the edit summary, I was going to remove the note altogether :P --Macros 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Omfg do it (but leave the part about Piercing damage imo) 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)